David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I fully endorse the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz. I offer my condolences to the victims as well, but I also want to encourage changes to produce better outcomes when—and I say 'when'—something similar happens in the future.

Australians have a legal right to self-defence. What they do not have is a practical ability to exercise that right. That needs to change. Those trapped within the Lindt cafe were left helpless, as the carrying of items for self-defence is not allowed under state law—and, what is worse, the offender possibly knew it. These items include non-lethal options such as pepper sprays, mace, clubs and personal tasers. For those who are unable to flee, who are insufficiently strong or who have no improvised weapon to hand, there is no option but to rely on the police and, as the saying goes: when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Self-defence is not a realistic option for most people, and it is especially not an option for the majority of women, the elderly and the disabled. This is not an argument for everyone to have a gun, as some people simplistically suggest. But what if amongst the hostages there had been a plain-clothes police officer or security guard carrying a pistol? If it is acknowledged that a police officer or someone similar may have been able to save lives, how can it be argued that any good guy who is trained to use guns could not have done the same?

Australia's ban on practical self-defence sets it apart from most other countries. Almost no other country prohibits non-lethal means of self-defence, and many permit ownership of firearms when there is a serious prospect of harm. There are perennial claims that resistance to violence is futile and that items of self-defence are routinely used against those using them. Any woman who has fought off a would-be rapist—and there are many —knows this to be untrue. Mythologising about firearms is a feature of Australian public debate Many seriously believe the solution to any crime involving a gun is more gun laws, and yet the offender in the Lindt cafe did not have a gun licence and, in any case, the sawn-off shotgun he was using was illegal.

I believe Australians agree that a battered wife dealing with a murderous ex-husband, a jeweller transporting valuable cargo and competent people who are well trained in the use of firearms, whether sworn police officers or just good guys, should be able to protect themselves and others if the need arises. I am certain that an overwhelming majority would unequivocally demand the right to practical self-defence, at least by using non-lethal means. It is time to stop pretending that the government can always protect us from events such as the Lindt cafe siege. Lives can be saved by allowing citizens to protect themselves.